If you had one louse on your head, would you think it was a problem? How about two? Would you hunt down and exterminate the Adam and Eve of lice nestled in your hair, or let them be? What about 10? Or 20? Or 200? What is the number you would tolerate before dunking your head in toxic poison to kill them all? Sometimes I think that is how the earth feels about us. Even though I know overpopulation is a serious threat to the environment, it is hard to come up with a solution. I mean, I am not a mathematician or anything, but either more people have to die or fewer people have to be born.
About a year ago, when I was pregnant, I saw this video by comedian Doug Stanhope:
I had to laugh at the irony of the moment, especially when I thought of my hybrid SUV in which I was planning to drive my baby home from the hospital. Life is a quantum mass of contradictions. As much as I want to consider myself an environmentalist with my recycling system that puts Al Gore to shame, an organic farm that would make Michael Pollen kale-colored with envy, and guaranteeing I let every yellow mellow in the toilet, does my procreating negate all that? Is my producing another human to consume and create waste mean I can no longer judge people for drinking from plastic water bottles?
I now find myself second-guessing every environmental decision since I produced this little being of natural destruction. Take for instance diapers. Do I use cloth diapers? But what about all the laundry? Think of all the children who die because they can't get clean water... the same water I am using to wash away my kid's poo with. So, what about 7th generation diapers? They are okay, but if I use them throughout the night while she sleeps, she wakes up covered in pee and I have to wash her outfit, wasting more water, or ignore the comments at the organic grocery store that my baby smells like urine. I have a hard enough time just trying to figure out what gluten is and whether or not it's hiding in carrots. So, what if I use Huggies just at night? Is that okay?
Or toys. I don't want her to have off-gassing toys made by babies in the developing world, so I should buy all new eco-happy toys, right? But the price difference between a rubber ducky chew toy at Babies R Us and a Sophie giraffe is $20. For a parent like me, I will get the deluxe French shi-shi option because of my belief that too many toys will condition you to feel entitled. But what if you differ from my Marxist Mommy style? What if you don't have the money to afford $50 handmade letter blocks, painted with the nectar of butterfly tears collected from virgins laboring in a local field?
Now that I have a baby, I realize that every choice I make is a potential environmental catastrophe. How do I reconcile the fact that I am glad she is alive, but that every life is a budding threat to the health of the earth? I don't want to live in denial, but feeling the guilt of creation rather than its beauty is exceedingly stressful.
The rhetoric to deal with these overwhelming feelings of self-blame is to "do your part." Plant trees, support local organic farmers, act morally superior. But sometimes that just doesn't feel like enough, and I find myself lost in clichés. Am I doing the best I can if I don't live in a solar-powered off-the-grid yurt, riding my bicycle to town in a handmade alpaca woven poncho to trade my raw milk with the fellow crafts people? And why is it all my responsibility? I feel powerless in a greater system that doesn't offer enough options to live without impact. Aren't the politicians and corporations more accountable, considering they have greater influence?
So here is where the contradiction lies. Part of the success of the green movement is not equating "green" with personal sacrifice, and with a wink and smile encouraging people to buy the organic Oreo cookies instead. Problem solved. But I get it. I don't want to think about all we would have to give up and would much rather believe we can live exactly the same, just buying the eco version of everything. And maybe that is true. Maybe it is not the number of people that is problematic, it is the way people are living. Or maybe our kids will one day figure it all out and solve this mess.
Follow Toni Nagy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/tonibolognamind
I recognize, as the author does, the fact that life is a mass of contradictions. Green is not an all-or-nothing decision. In large measure, Green has to come from corporate and government decisions which make options available to people at a reasonable cost. There will always be trade-offs -- whether one has children or not.
Not every personal choice has to be seen as a potential environmental catastrophe. After all, you have the ability to choose from options you are given. In some cases, there is no "right" answer. Maybe being Green is also about being compassionate toward those with fewer choices and resources?
In any case, my wife and I have raised our four children to respect the environment and the world around them, not just to take it for granted. Perhaps being Green can also be about making our children aware of a problem we just cannot handle by ourselves, so that as things progress, they might be able to do a better job.
There is no hypocrisy in being Green and making babies. After all, we are a part of the world now, and we will be even after we die, as our children strive to make things better for their children.
Every being on the planet operates from a selfish imperative. Does that make mosquitoes terrible? Does that make us terrible?
I don't even think it makes you terrible. We all just need to try to think a bit more about others, and possibly not be too judgmental of those who think somewhat differently. Maybe we don't even have to be too harshly judgmental of ourselves or our species. At least as human beings we have a capacity to be aware of what we are doing and have the ability to change.
The plot of the film Idiocracy comes to mind.
Idiocracy is more true than you think, and I think makes a pretty good point about procreation.
All these smart, thoughtful people who get brainwashed into misanthropic, child-hating behaviors are not healthy for society, nor themselves.
Being green is a way of life, a philosophy that says that preserving the earth and it's resources is a good idea, and should be taught to children.
The straw man argument here is the false choice of either:
1. "Don't have children, any of us. The problem is us and we must fight our instincts to fix it."
2. "Don't be green or even try, because it's a useless effort. Being green is hypocritical anyway."
Having fewer children also works. Having zero children is not realistic. It didn't work for the Shakers. Teaching children about science and ways of finding solutions to difficult problems is a way to fix the problem. If only those who don't give a damn about how their actions impact the planet and others have children, then who is going to grow up and be taught otherwise? It pretty much ensures that the problem will never get solved. Not in time anyway.
The author obviously has a child. The author is obviously conflicted by the realities of the world. The tone is (to use the word again) obviously sarcastic, and that makes your pretentious language confusing. Because BEING GREEN is not one-dimensional - thats the point you're missing. Extremism on either end is ignorant. So thumbs up to anyone, man or woman, who can address their contradictions intelligently.
You with zero fans and a bad attitude have come here to tell me that:
1. I'm hypocritical - see my original post where I say that some will say that "Being green is hypocriticÂal anyway." You have proven my point.
The article assumes, as you do Socrates, that not only are there only two extremes, but that I'm one of the extremists. Wrong on both counts.
2. You lecture me that I am "one dimensional". I suggest that you look in the mirror, as your argument is that I'm and extremist, which is very one dimensional, black and white style linear and concrete thinking. I'm and abstract thinker, and I suggested other solutions instead of what I see as an either/or dilemma, which is what this article presents. It's bogus.
3. That there is no difference between disagreeing with a viewpoint and understanding it. Talk about one dimensional thinking, and you call yourself Socrates!
I might remind you that Socrates, while a great teacher, clung blindly to the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. I can disagree and still "understand" a viewpoint. They are two different things.
I use phrases like "false equivalence", to conserve words. I'm not elitist, it means that I'm educated and want to conserve words and still get my point across. There is a word count here. Sorry that I bothered you. I try to type more words and slower next time. ;)
I agree with that. I think the environmental movement has in many ways lost touch with this sentiment, and has become essentially misanthropic.
Certainly, characters like Ed Abbey were notorious misanthropes, and would also surely take umbrage with your sentiment.
I don't think the issue , for most "greenies", is about "passing on DNA", but since you mention it, why do you "wish to pass on your DNA?" Just curious.
Also, successfully or not, I think the article and the video are meant to be comedy, so they are exaggerating for comic effect.
If you ever do become a parent (adoption or otherwise) I doubt you will find the experience "selfish".
I'm not saying its right, just saying you're commenting looks like you don't know what you are commenting on.
I love the human race, I want to see it thrive, and put it's health and happiness above the survival of other life forms.
That said, I can find a lot of common ground with environmentalists. I abhor coal industry, and the absurd extent to which they are allowed to (indirectly) dump toxins into the ocean. I hate car culture, and would love to see more bus, bicycle and pedestrian transit.
And I hate the deprivation and misery that comes from over population, particularly among impoverished people who are least capable of managing 5+ child families.
But when the birth of a healthy child to a loving, responsible and well prepared parent is seen as something other than a cause for celebration, that's a sure sign that society has lost some fundamental connection to the concept of humanitarianism.
There are lots of ways to enjoy your life without leaving a large footprint. I choose to do those things, and demonstrate them for my children in the hopes they will eventually choose the same.
A lot of being green overlaps with recognizing that society pressures you to overconsume. Resisting this pressure and carving your own path is good role modeling, whether or not you have children.
Oh come on. How about using condoms? You had the choice not to have kids, and decided your personal wants were more important than the environment. You're lying to yourself to suggest otherwise. I force myself to not eat meat, and never travel using planes, despite LOVING both these items, so you can certainly do without a luxury item like a baby. Don't blame others, when clearly you regard your enjoyment above that of the common good of the planet.
People who're convinced they're green and doing good are perhaps even worse than those who don't care, as the latter group hasn't patted itself on the back for tiny, inconsequential actions they take to "help". Most eco-types are pretty deluded and convince themselves they're playing their part... before jetting off abroad, maybe driving their car (of any sort, let alone an SUV), or even eating a nice steak.
But you are probably not bright enough to appreciate the irony.